PLEASE READ!!!

*****ALL users will have to request a password reset BEFORE you will be able to log into the forum. See the thread in the forum issues section for further instructions.
If you have issues with this, email us at admin@urbanohio.com. *****

It's crazy. I've had multiple, horrible, unjustified and degrading experiences with police and I'm WHITE. It probably would have been much worse if I were black! When I lived in Cincinnati when I was 18 or 19, I left my phone at a gas station and found out that a Hamilton County Sheriff had it on him so I drove and was on my way to meet up with him to retrieve my phone way out in the exurbs near Kings Island/Mason area. When I was close, I happened to pull out of a side street into a main artery and a local police officer and his partner pulled me over. When I politely asked him what I did wrong, he said I pulled out into the street too soon and should have let the car pass before I pulled out. The most minor of traffic offenses and something that isn't even covered in driving school or the BMV's exam. He was being really irate and yelling at me and said it was suspicious that I was so nervous but I told him I had never been pulled over before and didn't know what to expect or what I was supposed to do. That's beside the fact that I was dealing with men who have a badge and gun who have more of a legal right to use them that I ever would. He looked at my license, saw that my address was one in a rough hood in Cincinnati near Over The Rhine and asked me what I doing way out there. Even though I told him the truth about meeting up with a Sherriff, he didn't buy it and physically pulled me out of the car, put on rubber gloves and searched my whole body, in public. He shoved his hands down the front of my pants, copped a feel and asked me "what is this?!" while he was grabbing and tugging on it. I can't believe I had to actually answer that question. He made these ridiculous comments insinuated that I was just out there to sell drugs. That's when I knew I was absolutely f-ed. His partner was just standing right next to him, watching the whole thing and by the look on his face, I know he was thinking that this is absolute BS but he just remained silent the whole time. After the search, he checked me for warrants, checked registration on the car and searched my whole car, hoping to find anything on me, like drugs, in a desperate attempt to justify everything he did and after he found absolutely nothing, he told me that he was going to let me off with a 'warning.'

I went on my way and met up with the (black) Sherriff who had my phone. When I met up with him face to face, I told him personally what all had just happened to me and thought he'd be willing to help me because - well, he's black and he's no stranger to the b.s. that goes on with police - I thought that maybe he could back me up and fix sh!t and since he's a county Sheriff, would be able to put that officer in check but all he did was tell me "Yeah, everything they did was completely illegal" and that I would have every right to sue, but if I did, they have the resources to come after me for absolutely anything I do in the future, in retaliation. The look on his face indicated that even though I was a victim of some serious sexual misconduct and that my constitutional rights were violated, it wouldn't be worth the trouble to seek justice. I felt so powerless and hopeless after that conversation and I felt so violated and taken advantage of, from the incident that occurred before. Believe it or not, it still affects you in ways, even 10 years later. Of course, I'm not black and I'll never truly know what it's like to be a black male in America, dealing with police and racial profiling but I do know what it's like to be assaulted and abused by police for no good reason and that's why stories like this p!ss me off so much. I just really wish that there were better federal laws protecting people from what I've had to go through and for those who have gone through much worse than what I've had to go through.

It sounds like their 'standard procedures' are left to individual police departments.

^There are federal laws. 4th Amendment and 42 USC Sec. 1983 both offer recourse. That is how the victims or their families obtain money damages in a lot of these cases where the police officer is not criminally charged, indicted, or convicted, It's not as high of a burden of proof as in the criminal case, but you still have to overcome the qualified immunity which is rightfully afforded to the police.

Civil rights cases can either be brought individually in civil court, or they can be prosecuted as criminal offenses by the DOJ. But the latter option is at the DOJ's discretion and I don't think you are going to see many of those under the current administration.

^There are federal laws. 4th Amendment and 42 USC Sec. 1983 both offer recourse. That is how the victims or their families obtain money damages in a lot of these cases where the police officer is not criminally charged, indicted, or convicted, It's not as high of a burden of proof as in the criminal case, but you still have to overcome the qualified immunity which is rightfully afforded to the police.

Civil rights cases can either be brought individually in civil court, or they can be prosecuted as criminal offenses by the DOJ. But the latter option is at the DOJ's discretion and I don't think you are going to see many of those under the current administration.

And fines levied against police departments ultimately are born by the taxpayers. Easy solutions are hard to come by.

^There are federal laws. 4th Amendment and 42 USC Sec. 1983 both offer recourse. That is how the victims or their families obtain money damages in a lot of these cases where the police officer is not criminally charged, indicted, or convicted, It's not as high of a burden of proof as in the criminal case, but you still have to overcome the qualified immunity which is rightfully afforded to the police.

Civil rights cases can either be brought individually in civil court, or they can be prosecuted as criminal offenses by the DOJ. But the latter option is at the DOJ's discretion and I don't think you are going to see many of those under the current administration.

And fines levied against police departments ultimately are born by the taxpayers. Easy solutions are hard to come by.

The easy solution is fire the cops and put them in prison. I bet many others would reconsider their actions in these situations and behave more professionally .

Just as an update, the "Coffee Jaywalker" so far this year has been convicted of drug possession once, is currently in jail awaiting trial for drug possession and disorderly conduct, and has been cited on multiple traffic violations. If anyone here feels so inclined they can make a donation to the Center for Addition Treatment at http://www.catsober.org/ to help those that are addicted and being supplied by Charles Harrell.

Logged

"Someone is sitting in the shade today because someone planted a tree a long time ago." - Warren Buffett

No doubt. That was entirely unnecessary. Personally, if I were the officer, I'd at least be giving some sort of commands to the dog to let go and if that didn't work, I'd personally use my hands to pull his jaws open and off of that guy's arm.

I can't believe how many police officers in this country use bad judgement that defies common sense. You don't need to be a trained officer to see that. That's why so many people are p!ssed. It's not unreasonable to infer that these officers just don't give a sh!t about people like this guy.

It's ridiculous that ultimately, taxpayers are the ones paying for these settlements.

Wearing saggy pants and a hoodie constitutes trespassing? Don't get me wrong, I don't want to see some dude's sh!t stained drawers either; I'm not a fan of saggy pants but that's an offense that can give someone a trespassing charge and criminal record preventing them from getting them a job in the future!? That's something that clearly disproportionately effects the black community and it's not fair. They should ban Crocs as they're almost equally offensive and consider wearing Crocs as 'trespassing' except that will never happen as the administration would deem it ridiculous.

In order for it to be a trespassing charge, he would have had to have been asked to leave, and refused. So he wasn't arrested for what he was wearing, directly, he was arrested for knowingly remaining on the premises when he was not permitted to be there because his attire did not meet the code of conduct. It's like walking into a restaurant with no shirt and ho shoes - you'd be asked to leave, and if you refuse, you are then trespassing.

The Minneapolis police officer who shot and killed a 40-year-old woman in the alley behind her home Saturday night has been identified as Officer Mohamed Noor. Meanwhile, state investigators have confirmed that they did not find any weapons at the scene........

An exchange between police from the night of the shooting, posted by website Minnesota PoliceClips, shows one officer indicating a "female standing behind a building" on Washburn Avenue. Seconds later, another officer reports "shots fired" and "one down" in the same location, and then an officer says he's performing CPR. An officer also notes that there's no suspect at large. It's unclear if the audio is edited or compressed for time.....

At the same time, a neighborhood has continued to struggle for answers as to what caused the shooting. Family members said Damond called 911 that night to report a possible assault in the alley behind her home.....

ources: passenger fired

Three sources with knowledge of the incident said Sunday that two officers in one squad car, responding to the 911 call, pulled into the alley. Damond, in her pajamas, went to the driver's side door and was talking to the driver. The officer in the passenger seat pulled his gun and shot Damond through the driver's side door, sources said.

"Two Minneapolis police officers responded to a 911 call of a possible assault just north of the 5100 block of Washburn Avenue S. just before 11:30 p.m. Saturday," the BCA said in a news release. "At one point, an officer fired their weapon, fatally striking a woman.

Even if the officer was somehow justified, we will never know the truth of what conspired because they didn't have their cameras on. What's the freaking point of even having them? They should have been operating the moment they responded to the call.

The Minneapolis police officer who shot and killed a 40-year-old woman in the alley behind her home Saturday night has been identified as Officer Mohamed Noor. Meanwhile, state investigators have confirmed that they did not find any weapons at the scene........

An exchange between police from the night of the shooting, posted by website Minnesota PoliceClips, shows one officer indicating a "female standing behind a building" on Washburn Avenue. Seconds later, another officer reports "shots fired" and "one down" in the same location, and then an officer says he's performing CPR. An officer also notes that there's no suspect at large. It's unclear if the audio is edited or compressed for time.....

At the same time, a neighborhood has continued to struggle for answers as to what caused the shooting. Family members said Damond called 911 that night to report a possible assault in the alley behind her home.....

ources: passenger fired

Three sources with knowledge of the incident said Sunday that two officers in one squad car, responding to the 911 call, pulled into the alley. Damond, in her pajamas, went to the driver's side door and was talking to the driver. The officer in the passenger seat pulled his gun and shot Damond through the driver's side door, sources said.

"Two Minneapolis police officers responded to a 911 call of a possible assault just north of the 5100 block of Washburn Avenue S. just before 11:30 p.m. Saturday," the BCA said in a news release. "At one point, an officer fired their weapon, fatally striking a woman.

According to police sources, Noor shot across his partner and out the window of the squad car, striking Damond. When Noor opened fire, his partner was "stunned," according to the source.

Given the demographics, this story will probably not get much media air time. Aside from the race and national origins of the parties involved, there area number of suspicious circumstances here that are not usually seen in police shootings. The victim is the one who called police, to report a crime (normally, the victim is in the process of or suspected of committing a crime). She was shot from the police car, by the cop in the drivers seat, who shot over his partner's lap. A bizarre and unsafe thing to do, and it smells like a rookie mistake. The cop also has a history of violence against women.

I can't believe proper vetting of police officers is still an issue. There's so much at stake, not just with corruption and lives lost but settlements cost taxpayers millions of dollars. Officers need to be regularly drug tested and at the very least have a clean criminal background. It would make more sense to be more highly selective, invest more in training and offer higher-pay to attract better officers, vs. hiring low-life rookies who beat their wives, end up killing citizens and cost grieving taxpayers millions of dollars.

Given the demographics, this story will probably not get much media air time. Aside from the race and national origins of the parties involved, there area number of suspicious circumstances here that are not usually seen in police shootings. The victim is the one who called police, to report a crime (normally, the victim is in the process of or suspected of committing a crime). She was shot from the police car, by the cop in the drivers seat, who shot over his partner's lap. A bizarre and unsafe thing to do, and it smells like a rookie mistake. The cop also has a history of violence against women.

Most of these police officers involved in these controversial shootings in this thread have "history" with ______. I don't understand why you would mention that tidbit in contrast with other "Bad Cop" stories.

Logged

"You don't just walk into a bar and mix it up by calling a girl fat" - buildingcincinnati speaking about new forumers

I can't believe proper vetting of police officers is still an issue. There's so much at stake, not just with corruption and lives lost but settlements cost taxpayers millions of dollars. Officers need to be regularly drug tested and at the very least have a clean criminal background. It would make more sense to be more highly selective, invest more in training and offer higher-pay to attract better officers, vs. hiring low-life rookies who beat their wives, end up killing citizens and cost grieving taxpayers millions of dollars.

Given the demographics, this story will probably not get much media air time. Aside from the race and national origins of the parties involved, there area number of suspicious circumstances here that are not usually seen in police shootings. The victim is the one who called police, to report a crime (normally, the victim is in the process of or suspected of committing a crime). She was shot from the police car, by the cop in the drivers seat, who shot over his partner's lap. A bizarre and unsafe thing to do, and it smells like a rookie mistake. The cop also has a history of violence against women.

Most of these police officers involved in these controversial shootings in this thread have "history" with ______. I don't understand why you would mention that tidbit in contrast with other "Bad Cop" stories.

There's one incident where he grabbed a woman's wrist. She had mental health issues and was being transported - against her will - to get to a treatment facility. It's a stretch to say that constitutes a "history of violence" against women.

Given the demographics, this story will probably not get much media air time. Aside from the race and national origins of the parties involved, there area number of suspicious circumstances here that are not usually seen in police shootings. The victim is the one who called police, to report a crime (normally, the victim is in the process of or suspected of committing a crime). She was shot from the police car, by the cop in the drivers seat, who shot over his partner's lap. A bizarre and unsafe thing to do, and it smells like a rookie mistake. The cop also has a history of violence against women.

It won't get much air time, but not for the reasons your primal instincts would suggest to you. Unless something new comes out, no one will be rushing to this officer's defense. You won't have sleazy websites fishing through the victim's social media posts, looking for anything which would shed her in a negative light. There won't be a gofundme page set up for the officer. It seems fairly open and shut, so no controversy to discuss. They will move quickly to get an indictment, a grand jury will indict, the cop will lose his job, and the criminal proceedings will end in some sort of determination of guilt (whether through plea or verdict). Justice will be served.

In the meantime, you definitely won't be hearing "let's wait for all of the evidence to come out"

I can't believe proper vetting of police officers is still an issue. There's so much at stake, not just with corruption and lives lost but settlements cost taxpayers millions of dollars. Officers need to be regularly drug tested and at the very least have a clean criminal background. It would make more sense to be more highly selective, invest more in training and offer higher-pay to attract better officers, vs. hiring low-life rookies who beat their wives, end up killing citizens and cost grieving taxpayers millions of dollars.

Police hiring is extremely competitive. Background checks are involved. There is a testing process. Then, upon hire, there is additional vetting done in the Academy, including fitness for duty evaluations. Of course, that doesn't mean the best candidates are always selected. The final civil service entrance examination scores may rank the first several hundred candidates only separated by a percentage point or two. Once extra credit points are added for things like residency or military service, the top grade candidate may get bumped from consideration. There was a test a few years ago where the guy who got the top score ended up being ranked in the 400s and wasn't even considered because he did not receive any extra credit points.

Apparently he's a Somali immigrant. I don't know how long he's been in America but a part of me thinks its a little too risky to only be able to look at a limited portion of someone's criminal background for a job like that. If it was literally any other job beside law enforcement, I probably wouldn't care but I doubt it's easy to obtain accurate criminal records on someone from a country like Somalia... especially if you're talking about abusing women which probably isn't even a crime in Somalia. Not to sound Xenophobic but stakes are pretty high when you give someone a badge and gun. From what I've read, it seems like he was a decent guy but who knows. I know the department had good intentions - they have the highest Somali population in the country and they were proud to hire someone who is better able to represent a big portion of their population. Still...

I can't believe proper vetting of police officers is still an issue. There's so much at stake, not just with corruption and lives lost but settlements cost taxpayers millions of dollars. Officers need to be regularly drug tested and at the very least have a clean criminal background. It would make more sense to be more highly selective, invest more in training and offer higher-pay to attract better officers, vs. hiring low-life rookies who beat their wives, end up killing citizens and cost grieving taxpayers millions of dollars.

Police hiring is extremely competitive. Background checks are involved. There is a testing process. Then, upon hire, there is additional vetting done in the Academy, including fitness for duty evaluations. Of course, that doesn't mean the best candidates are always selected. The final civil service entrance examination scores may rank the first several hundred candidates only separated by a percentage point or two. Once extra credit points are added for things like residency or military service, the top grade candidate may get bumped from consideration. There was a test a few years ago where the guy who got the top score ended up being ranked in the 400s and wasn't even considered because he did not receive any extra credit points.

The same supply issues seen in many other industries are definitely at work with the police. The supply of juiced-up meatheads is endless, but the supply of people really perfectly fit for the job is tiny. That kind of work just doesn't appeal to most mellow people. They HAVE to let some meatheads through. They have no choice.